An experiment that shows a striking effect is more likely to be submitted to a journal, accepted and cited. One that finds nothing often stays in a drawer. If only the published ones are read, the real efficacy of what is being studied is overestimated.
The problem is larger when a field is dominated by a few research groups, when studies are small and when there is no obligation to register studies before carrying them out. Several areas of preclinical peptide research meet those conditions.
To reduce it there are clinical trial registries (such as ClinicalTrials.gov), which show which studies were started even if they were never published, and statistical tools in meta-analyses to detect it.
When all the literature on a compound is positive and comes from a few sources, it is worth asking what is not being seen. It is part of reading the evidence critically.
Related terms
Learn it in depth at the Peptide University
- Common biases and scaling between species · Module 13
- Amylin, the oral route and the next generation · Module 3
- Hierarchy of evidence and development phases · Module 13
Definition for educational and scientific purposes. It is not medical advice or a recommendation for use. NeoPeptidos products are sold labelled for research use only (RUO).